[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 688 bytes --]
At this point I believe that it is now clear. It’s still based on V7 but
All of that is covered by the ancient system license/release of a few years
ago.
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:50 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> What's the current status of net/2?
>
> I ask because I have a FreeBSD 1.1.5.1 CVS repo that I'd like to make
> available. Some of the files in it are encumbered, though, and the
> University of California has communicated that fact. But what does that
> actually mean now that V7 has been released and that's what the files were
> based on? Are they no longer encumbered?
>
> Warner
>
> --
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1128 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1705 bytes --]
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 18:49:44 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> What's the current status of net/2?
>
> I ask because I have a FreeBSD 1.1.5.1 CVS repo that I'd like to make
> available. Some of the files in it are encumbered, though, and the
> University of California has communicated that fact. But what does that
> actually mean now that V7 has been released and that's what the files were
> based on? Are they no longer encumbered?
To the best of my knowledge, Net/2 would be covered by the license
granted by Caldera on 23 January 2002:
Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that
includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source
code, including creating derived binary products created from the
source code. The source code for which Caldera International,
Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating
Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of
the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX
System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems:
32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
I'm attaching the PDF of the license agreement, along with an email
from Dion Johnson to wkt (misspelt as wht) the following day.
It doesn't specifically address any particular operating system, but
it was my understanding that this would free all BSD versions.
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA[-- Attachment #1.2: ancient-source-all.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 12299 bytes --][-- Attachment #1.3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 26135 bytes --][-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

> To the best of my knowledge, Net/2 would be covered by the license
> granted by Caldera on 23 January 2002:
Except rulings since then said they never had the right (as they never
owned the rights).
###### from my slide notes ########
TITLE=Who owns ancient Unix?
IMAGE=images/netbsd-pcc-caldera-license-screenshot.png
Some background:
BULLET=Western Electric's patent department told the Bell Labs
developers to remove all copyright notices from all Unix files.
NOTE:They shipped code that did have a license agreement nevertheless.
BULLET=These 1970's distributions pre-dated the US copyright law
changes in 1989 (due to the Berne Convention) which made copyrights
automatic.
BULLET=Western Electric / BTL purposeful removal of copyrights may
have meant forfeiture of copyright.
Western Electric's patent department told the Bell Labs developers
to remove all copyright notices from all Unix files. They shipped
code that did have a license agreement nevertheless. These 1970's
distributions pre-dated the US copyright law changes in 1989 (due
to the Berne Convention) which made copyrights automatic. The 1970's
purposeful removal of copyrights may have meant forfeiture of
copyright.
BULLET=In 1984, AT&T did retroactively copyright some of their
ancient Unix code.
BULLET=They also mistakenly placed their copyright on code copyrighted
by the Regents of the University of California.
In 1984, AT&T did retroactively copyright some of their ancient
Unix code. They also placed their copyright on code copyrighted by
the Regents of the University of California. Here is an example:
https://github.com/att/uwin/blob/master/src/cmd/captoinfo/otermcap.c
BULLET=Unix System Laboratories (USL) was formed for Bell Labs
around 1989 for the responsibility for Unix development and Unix
licensing activities.
NOTE:It became a subsidiary of AT&T.
Unix System Laboratories (USL) was formed for Bell Labs around 1989
for the responsibility for Unix development and Unix licensing
activities. It became a subsidiary of AT&T.
BULLET= In 1993, Novell purchases USL and its Unix assets (including
copyrights).
In 1993, Novell purchases USL and its Unix assets (including
copyrights).
NOTE: In regards to AT&T/Novell vs. UC/BSDI ... BULLET=In 1993,
judge shared the opinion and again reaffirmed that USL "failed to
demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its
copyright in 32V"
# Salus told me (around 2011) he was in the opinion (shared by
the folks at Cravath, Swain..., IBM's lawyers) that V1-7 and 32V
were covered by Judge Dickinson Debevoise's finding on 3 March 1993
(reaffirmed on 30 March 1993) that it was "unlikely" that Novell
could successfully maintain copyright to the early UNIX versions
or the BSD versions 2-4.4.
Also in 1993, Judge Dickinson Debevoise's shared the opinion and
again reaffirmed that USL "failed to demonstrate a likelihood that
it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V" (that is the
ancient Unix).
http://tech-insider.org/usl-v-bsdi-ucb/research/1993/0303.htmlhttp://tech-insider.org/usl-v-bsdi-ucb/research/1993/0330.html
BULLET=In 1995, Novell transfered some Unix rights to The SCO
Group. As part of their agreement, multiple times. it specifically
excluded copyrights.
BULLET=SCO believed they purchased the Unix copyrights.
BULLET= Novell contented it retained the copyrights ownership.
In 1995, Novell intended to sell its Unix business. It transfered
some Unix rights to The SCO Group. As part of their agreement,
multiple times. it specifically excluded copyrights. SCO believed
they purchased the Unix copyrights. Novell contented it retained
the copyrights onwership.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-4217.pdf
#############
TITLE=Who owns ancient Unix? (continued)
IMAGE=images/Caldera-license.png
BULLET=In 2001, SCO sold its Unix business, including its believed
ownership of Unix copyrights, to Caldera.
In 2001, SCO sold its Unix business, including its believed ownership
of Unix copyrights, to Caldera.
NOTE: SCO renamed itself to Tarantella
CITE: https://web.archive.org/web/20071001003614/http://sec.edgar-online.com/2001/05/16/0001012870-01-500891/Section7.asp
BULLET=In 2002, Caldera widely announced that the ancient Unix code
(through 32V) were copyright by Caldera and licensed under an open
source license.
NOTE: They (assuming they owned it) gave the 1970's code away to
the world.
In 2002, Caldera widely announced that the ancient Unix code (through
32V) were copyright by Caldera and licensed under an open source
license. They (assuming they owned it) gave the 1970's code away
to the world. http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf also at
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
BULLET=In 2002, Caldera changed its name to SCO.
In 2002, Caldera changed its name to SCO.
NOTE:the ancient Unixes were widely distributed
In 2002 and soon later, the ancient Unixes were widely distributed
and reused, under the copyright and license from Caldera. Some
examples are at
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/bsd/pcc/dist/pcc/cc/cc/cc.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markuphttp://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/games/ching/ching/ching.sh?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markuphttp://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/spell/spellprog/spellprog.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markuphttp://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/deroff/deroff.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
Many many projects widely share and reuse this historical code,
such as http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/ The various code is mirrored
all over the internet.
Note this effectively put copyrights and licenses on unchanged code
that previously had no copyright and license.
BULLET=The new "SCO" attempted to say they owned Unix rights.
BULLET=Defendent's lawyers believed that it was unlikely that anyone
could could successfully maintain copyright to the early Unix
versions (based on 1993 opinion).
The new "SCO" attempted to say they owned Unix rights even though
they had given them away via open source licensing. They tried to
challenge IBM regarding this. IBM's lawyers believed that it was
unlikely that anyone could could successfully maintain copyright
to the early Unix versions.
BULLET=In 2003, Novell stated it did not transfer copyrights for
Unix System V to Caldera and communicated it would support the open
source (and Linux) communities implying it would not challenge use
of that Unix code.
NOTE:Probably because they knew earlier opinions indicated that
couldn't challenge it.
In 2003, Novell stated it did not transfer copyrights for Unix
System V to Caldera and communicated it would support the open
source (and Linux) communities implying it would not challenge use
of that Unix code. (Probably because they knew earlier opinions
indicated that couldn't challenge it.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030602195439/http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
BULLET= In 2007, a district court concluded that Novell was the
owner of the Unix copyrights.
In 2007, a district court concluded that Novell was the owner of
the Unix copyrights.
BULLET= In 2009. a district court affirmed again that Novell was
the owner of the Unix copyrights.
In 2009. a district court affirmed again that Novell was the owner
of the Unix copyrights.
BULLET= In 2010, a jury confirmed Novell's ownership of Unix and
again Novell communicated its protection of the open source community
use of that Unix code.
In 2010, a jury confirmed Novell's ownership of Unix and again
communicated its protection of the open source community use of
that Unix code.
https://www.microfocus.com/about/press-room/article/2010/utah-jury-confirms-novell-has-ownership-of-unix-copyrights/
BULLET=In 2011, a district court again affirmed Novell's copyright
ownership.
In 2011, a district court again affirmed Novell's copyright ownership.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-4122.pdf
BULLET=In 2011, Novell is acquired by the Attachemate Group. In
2011, Novell is acquired by the Attachemate Group.
BULLET=In 2014, Micro Focus acquires the Attachemate Group.
In 2014, Micro Focus acquires the Attachemate Group.
BULLET=Micro Focus's press-room website shares old 2010 news: "The
jury's decision confirmed Novell's ownership of the UNIX copyrights,
which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux."
https://www.microfocus.com/about/press-room/article/2010/utah-jury-confirms-novell-has-ownership-of-unix-copyrights/
As individuals and organizations distribute the 1970's Unix code
they do based on the copyright and license of Caldera. But as you
can see later years, it was stated multiple times that really Novell
may be the owner of that code.
Here is the situation summarized again:
- No copyrights when copyright statements were required. (These
non-copyrighted files are widely available today.)
- Software was widely shipped and reused (This is easily seen
today.)
- Company that owned the rights to Unix couldn't really claim the
copyrights because they didn't exist. (And that company doesn't
really exist anymore. And even if they did they could never close
up something that was given away for free already by them.)
- Effectively with no copyright and their very wide distribution,
they are like public domain.
- The commercial Unixes are mostly rewrites or reimplementations
of some of the historical Unix code. While some of the old code
may exist there, it is very different. The last commercial Unix
systems Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX are being phased out and have no
interest in the 1970's Unix code.
- Maybe Micro Focus owns the copyrights for the later Unix code.
Micro Focus's purchased businesses had no recent interest in the
ancient Unix code in last 24 years. One of those businesses
explicitely communicated it would not pursue copyright litigation
over the historic Unix source code (probably because they couldn't
prove the old code was copyrighted).
As far as I know, Micro Focus doesn't sell the software nor licensing
for ancient Unix, but maybe newer Unix.
https://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/licensinghome.aspxhttps://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/Unix1.asphttps://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/unixdeployment.asp?prod=unixhttps://community.microfocus.com/t5/Over-the-Back-Fence/Micro-Focus-s-stance-on-Ancient-UNIX-licensing/td-p/1946721
(Note again this code was open sourced because Caldera thought they
bought the ownership from Novell, which now is a part of Micro
Focus.)
(A couple years ago)
I got in contact with Stirling Adams, Associate General Counsel,
Head of IP at Micro Focus. They will research it. I doubt they
know about it :) (This was done because of a NetBSD license request
regarding some of this licensed code.)
I'd like to get Micro Focus to provide an additional statement
somewhat similar to what Nokia did (but less restrictive) that it
will will not assert any copyright rights on the 1970's Research
Unix Editions.
I have a feeling if the can understand it, that this may be opening
up a can of worms. That is they won't like that caldera put their
copyright on it.
Basically I'd want Micro Focus just to acknowledge that it wasn't
copyrighted and they won't assert any rights. (But what are the
rules for EU in regards to making it public domain?)
On the side, I also asked them about the commercial Unix editions that
they may own from the 1980's. It would be interesting to know their
interests there too. (2 Apr 2018)
By the way, Nokia apparently owns the rights to the non-commercial
"research" versions of Unix in the 1980s. They didn't open source
it fully, but allow non-commercial use.
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dan_Cross_v8/statement_regarding_Unix_3-7-17.pdf